Maria T. v. Craig R.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Maria T. v. Craig R.

40 A.D.3d 867, 834 N.Y.S.2d 474

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 15, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 40 A.D.3d 867 (Maria T. v. Craig R.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Maria T. v. Craig R., 40 A.D.3d 867, 834 N.Y.S.2d 474 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Rockland County (Christopher, J.), entered December 22, 2005, which, after a hearing, granted that branch of the mother’s petition which was, in effect, to vacate so much of a prior order of the same court (Garvey, J.), dated January 8, [868]*8682003, as directed her to send photographs of the parties’ child to the father every two months.

Ordered that the order entered December 22, 2005 is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court properly granted that branch of the mother’s petition which was, in effect, to vacate so much of the order dated January 8, 2003, as directed her to send photographs of the parties’ child to the father every two months. The court’s determination was supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Rho v Rho, 19 AD3d 605, 606 [2005]).

The father’s remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.P., Santucci, Skelos and Dickerson, JJ, concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Rockland County (Christopher, J.), entered December 22, 2005, which, after a hearing, granted that branch of the mother’s petition which was, in effect, to vacate so much of a prior order of the same court (Garvey, J.), dated January 8, [868]*8682003, as directed her to send photographs of the parties’ child to the father every two months.

Ordered that the order entered December 22, 2005 is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court properly granted that branch of the mother’s petition which was, in effect, to vacate so much of the order dated January 8, 2003, as directed her to send photographs of the parties’ child to the father every two months. The court’s determination was supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Rho v Rho, 19 AD3d 605, 606 [2005]).

The father’s remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.P., Santucci, Skelos and Dickerson, JJ, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.3d 867, 834 N.Y.S.2d 474, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maria-t-v-craig-r-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack